Should USMS follow "suit" ?

Apparently there can be no middle ground where we accept technology but place reasonable restrictions on it (material, thickness, coating, etc). Actually, there can be. However, it is predicated on several things: There must be a standard of "reasonableness" that exists either as a regulated standard by an organization empowered to do so and enforce it or as a de facto standard agreed upon by the majority, and "enforced" by the majority. If the organization is empowered, it must be able to convince the majority that it's decision is "reasonable." If they can't, you end up with the majority circumventing or actively opposing said decision, effectively nullifying it. Example: The death of "amateurism" in sports like Track and Field. Further, the organization must have the means to accurately distinguish between those things that meet the definition and those that do not. The fiasco that FINA recently found itself in is a good example of what can happen even if you (potentially) have the means/ability. If the majority puts forth a de facto standard, it has no real recourse to enforcing it (short of lynching/shunning) and likely little ability/resources to determine what fits the standard. Example: Some of the open water races in this part of the world draw a strong majority of people who don't think you should do an open water race in a wetsuit. Some of the people in the race do wear them. The majority has no say in the matter, however, since it has nothing behind it. USMS can set whatever rules they like and they can enforce the most obvious things, but they have neither the ability or resources to enforce the finer points. Example: Who will determine if the coating on a suit is actually a legal coating if they both look, smell, etc alike. Even more so is the case where technology evolves and USMS is stuck with trying to decide if a new material meets its standards, is better or worse than some thing that is illegal, etc, etc, etc. I'll nominate you to that USMS committee, but I want no part of it. FINA took an interesting tact in their most recent decision by effectively saying "We can't distinguish what fits a more technological approach to swimming equipment, so we are rolling it back to a level that we think we can distinguish what fits the rule and what doesn't." If we decide to break with the mother country, go to the other point of distinction (this is not an extreme -it is a point where decision-making is pragmatic) Throw out the passive mechanical changes, since there is no mechanism in USMS to enforce them anyway and stick with the things you can enforce. Just look at how fractured the opinions are within this group about this topic and the subtle, and in some cases not so subtle , differences. Is 1 mm thickness of material X "better" than 1.1 mm of Material Y? Why is 1 mm thickness of material X "good", but 1.1 mm of Material X "bad?" How to decide this and how to enforce this? However, take comfort in the fact that Tech suits come and Tech suits go, but Polyester jammers are forever. -LBJ

Apparently there can be no middle ground where we accept technology but place reasonable restrictions on it (material, thickness, coating, etc). Actually, there can be. However, it is predicated on several things: There must be a standard of "reasonableness" that exists either as a regulated standard by an organization empowered to do so and enforce it or as a de facto standard agreed upon by the majority, and "enforced" by the majority. If the organization is empowered, it must be able to convince the majority that it's decision is "reasonable." If they can't, you end up with the majority circumventing or actively opposing said decision, effectively nullifying it. Example: The death of "amateurism" in sports like Track and Field. Further, the organization must have the means to accurately distinguish between those things that meet the definition and those that do not. The fiasco that FINA recently found itself in is a good example of what can happen even if you (potentially) have the means/ability. If the majority puts forth a de facto standard, it has no real recourse to enforcing it (short of lynching/shunning) and likely little ability/resources to determine what fits the standard. Example: Some of the open water races in this part of the world draw a strong majority of people who don't think you should do an open water race in a wetsuit. Some of the people in the race do wear them. The majority has no say in the matter, however, since it has nothing behind it. USMS can set whatever rules they like and they can enforce the most obvious things, but they have neither the ability or resources to enforce the finer points. Example: Who will determine if the coating on a suit is actually a legal coating if they both look, smell, etc alike. Even more so is the case where technology evolves and USMS is stuck with trying to decide if a new material meets its standards, is better or worse than some thing that is illegal, etc, etc, etc. I'll nominate you to that USMS committee, but I want no part of it. FINA took an interesting tact in their most recent decision by effectively saying "We can't distinguish what fits a more technological approach to swimming equipment, so we are rolling it back to a level that we think we can distinguish what fits the rule and what doesn't." If we decide to break with the mother country, go to the other point of distinction (this is not an extreme -it is a point where decision-making is pragmatic) Throw out the passive mechanical changes, since there is no mechanism in USMS to enforce them anyway and stick with the things you can enforce. Just look at how fractured the opinions are within this group about this topic and the subtle, and in some cases not so subtle , differences. Is 1 mm thickness of material X "better" than 1.1 mm of Material Y? Why is 1 mm thickness of material X "good", but 1.1 mm of Material X "bad?" How to decide this and how to enforce this? However, take comfort in the fact that Tech suits come and Tech suits go, but Polyester jammers are forever. -LBJ